Making Porn in Ireland

I only ever encountered one and it was illegal however I was not involved directly in the case so dont know what law it broke.

I would imagine it could fall under prostitution and similar offences (you are paying a woman to have sex) or possible more in the lines of a brothel (you are selling a woman as a sexual tool).

More than likely however I doubt you would be able to obtain a license to produce or distribute and therefore it would be illegal.

Mr Burns wrote:

What is the position if one orders a hardcore porn DVD by mail order via the internet? Would they be prosecuted?

Highly unlikely but customs would seize the item if they discovered it (which is at best 50/50).

EducatedGuess wrote:

As far as I am aware in Ireland, it not against the law to produce a pornographic movie, once the 'actors' are licensed [having their card]. The ruling in R v Brown has been adopted here i.e. It is not against the law to produce a hetrosexual porn but is against the law to produce a homosexual [male] porn. The law as it stands in Ireland is that it is against the law for more than two consenting adult males to patricipate in a sex act. Therefore by the presence of a camera man etc makes it illegal. But you can film as many lesbians or hetrosexuals as you want.

It would follow that you could not market said movie until it was passed by the IFCO? The chances of him allowing it would be slim i would think.

EducatedGuess wrote:

The law as it stands in Ireland is that it is against the law for more than two consenting adult males to patricipate in a sex act.

According to CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES) ACT, 1993 Section 2.—Subject to sections 3 and 5 of this Act, any rule of law by virtue of which buggery between persons is an offence is hereby abolished.

I cant find any sections in law that mentions more than 2 being illegal.

EducatedGuess wrote:

Camera Man [etc] or camera persons. Sorry about that. Regarding the Criminal Law [Sexual Offences] Act, you are not going to find it, i said following the ruling in R v. Brown, thats precedence not legislation. I am afraid if your looking for legislation you won't find it. I have looked too. But if you read the abitor dictum or [dicta] in above case the rulings on similar cases thereafter, they seem in practice to follow it. Although as mentioned above by someone else it was only 5 to 4 ruling. I am sure just one more gay judge would have helped.

I can only find reference to R V Brown 1993 under assault during a sporting game and the ruling reflected that assault can be commited even when playing a physical sport. Before that was 1977, both UK cases. Which one are you refering to?

Yeah its R v. Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75, also if you want to read R v. Lucas, R v. Jaggard R. Laskey & Carter, they were all together same result really.

If all the partipicants give consent in the making of the film, who would the complainant be?

Victor wrote:

What about a possible case of the film producer (i.e. organiser and financier) having acharge of living off immoral means?

I already said that but was ignored.

TalkISCheap wrote:

The thing about R vs Brown is that it's less about the fact that there was sex involved, and more about the fact that it was seen as a serious form of assault. (Which historically is not consentable to, as dangerous to society.)

Exactly, it has nothing to do with 2 or 10 men being involved in homosexual sex regardless of filming or not.

Dont forget the Life of Brian was banned here when it came out, contraception & homosexuality were against the law until recent times. Suppose its a socio/legal thing.

EducatedGuess wrote:

English case law is used in Ireland, [it doesn't matter if its English]. I am thinking someone hasn't studied law. 90% of Irish Law is based on English law ... abitor dictum ...

There is a slight element of incongruity in chiding another poster for not having studied law while mispelling 'obiter'.

Post independence English law in not binding in Ireland like all commonwealth law it is used for its ratio and for tests which can be applied where the facts of cases are similar. It does matter if it's English it is not BINDING.

Back to R v Brown, the tapes were not sold and as such the case is easily distinguished.
Remember also that Lanskey sought out young men under the age of consent (21 for homosexuals) and indeed at least one of these was 15. The law lords wanted to **** him basically and they did.

On the broader question no opinion or interest but what about marital privacy if you use married actors/actresses?

MM

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone not studying law. It was a general statement. I probably was directing it to students who may have studied say criminal and not torts, then offer advice purely on that basis. I never said that English case law is binding, what I am trying to say is that English case law can be and is used on a regular basis in Irish courts, as a way of highlighting matters and supporting legal arguments. The problem with legislation is that it can be limited, tried case law can offer a more mature legal view. I am sure Karlitosway can understand the frustration of a collapsing trial over a decision of a judge on the basis of his understanding of the word reasonable for example. In the case of R v Brown it is the jurisprudential aspects of the rulings. The morality of the acts. The aspect of this case that applies to pornography, was the evidence submitted by the recordings of the acts. Video cameras were used to record the activities and the resulting tapes were then copied and distributed amongst members of the group. The tapes were not sold or used other than the delectation of the members of the group. The dissenting judges although focusing on the actual harm, highlighted the fact that these acts were contrary to public policy and and that it required society to protect...."against a cult which contained the danger of the proselytisation and corruption of young men". Not saying its right just trying to highlight a different perspective. Apologies if I caused any disrespect, was not directing at you lot. I can see from the ideas put forward that ye of a knowledge of law.

Dont mean to rant on either about the English Law, Common Law and get off the topic, but judicial decisions are made on English Law, e.g. Mr. Justice O'Caoimh held that a defendant can avail of the reasoning set out by the House of Lords in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. in 2001. The defence put forward the decision in Reynolds and the justice followed, not saying he's bound by it, just saying its used.

EducatedGuess wrote:

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone not studying law.

OK I apologise if I came off like a dick.

EducatedGuess wrote:

In the case of R v Brown ... The aspect of this case that applies to pornography, was the evidence submitted by the recordings of the acts.

I suppose in the case of porn the crime would be prostitution?

Re English cases we use the reasoning all the time but where this is superseded by legislation the case law is irrelevant.


I mean marital privacy as in the McGee case (and I don't believe that 'marital privacy' requires marriage).;)
The distribution element I don't think so. If a married couple derive erotic pleasure from selling tapes of themselves having sex than there is no problem.

MM

But can you claim any form of privacy if the product is for public viewing?